Big Deal, stars actors Yoo Hae-jin and Lee Je-hoon

The movie “Soju War” stars actors Yoo Hae-jin and Lee Je-hoon. It was completed in 2023 but remained buried for a while before finally being released, making it a film with a somewhat unique history. At first glance, the title might suggest a lighthearted commercial comedy centered around soju, but as the film unfolds, audiences are confronted with a completely different genre. The appearance of the term “IMF” reveals that this is not just a marketing competition but a real battle for survival between companies. The film unfolds as a drama that goes beyond the brand war between soju companies to shed light on the complex world of corporate management and capital struggles.

 

Set against the backdrop of the IMF foreign exchange crisis, the film is based on the decline and acquisition of Jinro, one of South Korea's leading soju brands. Jinro is a well-known national soju brand with a frog logo. While there are various regional soju brands nationwide, securing market share in Seoul and the capital region is synonymous with market dominance. In that sense, this film is not just about a product battle but a real war over “corporate dominance,” a capital battle mediated by soju. It is a fictionalized account based on actual history.

However, the way the film handles capital and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is somewhat disappointing. This is a recurring thought whenever Korean films tackle such economic themes: the depiction of capital structures and financial mechanisms lacks depth. The screenplay focuses on emotional dynamics between characters or relies on dramatic settings, revealing a disconnect from realistic portrayals. This may be because Korean society as a whole still lacks a mature understanding of financial capitalism. The film crew's research and scenario design also fail to overcome this limitation.

The disappointing aspects of the film “Soju War” are not only its lack of realism but also its character settings. The protagonist, “Choi In-beom,” played by Lee Joon-ho, is a character who has returned to Korea after spending a long time overseas. He approaches the crisis-stricken Kookbo Group with a consulting proposal and, through this, obtains internal company information in order to seize the opportunity to take over management. In contrast, there is the character of “Pyo Jong-rok,” played by Yoo Hae-jin, who has devoted his entire life to the company but is treated like a servant without receiving proper treatment. The two characters treat the company in different ways, but ultimately face the question of “who will control the company?”

The National Treasure Group is a company operated by Chairman Seok Jin-woo, portrayed by Son Hyun-joo, as if it were his personal asset. This was a typical operational model for large Korean corporations at the time. The chairman privatized the company, and the executive team had to survive in a competition of loyalty to the chairman. Director Pyo Jong-rok works diligently within this structure but receives no recognition, viewing the company as his own life. On the other hand, Choi In-beom views the company strictly from an outsider's perspective and acts as a strategist seeking acquisition and profit rather than recovery. The conflict between these two characters is the central axis of the film.

An interesting point in this film is that it unfolds around the process of foreign capital attempting to acquire a Korean company. Choi In-beom accepts a proposal from a foreign investment fund and joins forces with the Kookbo Group to pursue a plan to acquire management rights. By exploiting the contract terms of the bonds issued by Kookbo, which stipulate that if the debt is not repaid within five years, the company will enter receivership, he shakes up Kookbo. This setting reflects, to some extent, the process by which Korean companies were taken over by foreign capital after the IMF crisis. However, the film simplifies this process into dramatic conflict rather than dealing with it in detail.

The issue is that Korean films generally depict foreign capital in a one-dimensional manner. “Soju War” is no exception, portraying foreign funds as villains targeting companies. The film always concludes with the patriotic logic that “Korean companies must be protected,” portraying external capital as greedy and unethical. While this narrative is effective in eliciting emotional responses from the audience, it has the limitation of distorting the complexity of capitalism and the reality of the global market. A more nuanced approach could have resulted in a far more compelling narrative.

In addition, the film was released without the director's name officially credited due to a controversy over script plagiarism. This is a symbolic event that shows how much confusion and controversy there was during the production process. Legal disputes over scripts are issues that are directly linked not only to artistic integrity but also to the credibility of the film industry as a whole. Given that such an incident occurred, “Soju War” leaves room to be interpreted as a social issue beyond a simple film. In other words, there was a lot of controversy outside of the film as well.

As a result, *Soju War* appears to be a film that, despite its intriguing subject matter and social backdrop, fails to fully capitalize on its potential. Despite its powerful themes of management disputes, corporate takeovers, and capital conflicts, the film fails to sustain its tension throughout. The characters' emotional arcs and conflicts are flat, and the logic of capital is only mentioned in abstract terms. With a more meticulous and realistic scenario and three-dimensional character relationships, it could have delivered a much stronger message.

The greatest value of this film is that it makes us reflect on the past and present of Korean capitalism. It can also serve as a mirror showing how Korean society has changed since the IMF crisis and how corporations and capital have been reorganized. Although it falls short in terms of completeness, *Soju War* still poses important questions. How should we view corporations, and what choices should we make within the flow of capital? In this sense, the film holds significance beyond that of a mere commercial film.